lessons for minimizing impacts to coral reef and other ...€¦ · national tsunami hazard...

1

American Fisheries Society Symposium 64:000–000, 2008© 2008 by the American Fisheries Society

Lessons for Minimizing Impacts to Coral Reef and Other Ecosystems from the 2004 Tsunami

DWAYNE MEADOWS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA

DEBORAH BROSNANSustainable Ecosystems Institute

Post Office Box 80605, Portland, Oregon 97280, USA

Abstract.—The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami left a vast amount of destruction in its wake on land and in the sea. About 60% of coral reefs in the affected areas of Thai-land were damaged, at least in the shallowest 10–20-m (33–66 ft) depth zones. Many damaged reef, beach, and mangrove areas in Thailand and Sri Lanka were high value tourist attractions or provided other important ecosystem goods and services. We were part of a fortuitous partnership of people with experience in reef restoration, coral reef science, marine debris removal, construction, professional scuba diving, business, marketing, and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We helped organize and fund multiple restoration and cleanup projects that restored damaged and de-tached sea fans in Similan Islands Marine National Park, restored hard corals, removed more than 453.59 metric tons of marine debris, and provided sustainable management advice to local stakeholders and decision makers. We later became involved in advising emergency management agencies on disaster preparedness and response. We use our reef-dominated experiences as a case study to suggest broader lessons learned for natu-ral scientists to be involved in and for emergency managers to consider for mitigating and planning for future natural disaster impacts on fishery ecosystems. We also pro-vide some coral-reef specific lessons regarding reattachment of large sea fans, triaging and organizing large-scale volunteer marine debris recovery, and other coral ecosystem restoration efforts. We argue that “natural” disasters can cause significant damage to reefs and other ecosystems and that much damage results from human sources that are not natural and can be mitigated or prevented (such as siting and land-use deci-sions that lead to debris affecting reefs). Thus, we disagree with those who say natural events like hurricanes or tsunamis “are not appropriate for reef restoration” (Precht 2006; Symons et al. 2006). Further, governments need to recognize the economic and inherent values of ecosystem goods and services in natural disaster response legislation and policies (e.g., The Stafford Act in the United States) to improve outcomes for soci-ety. We also argue that ecosystem advocates need to adopt the language of emergency management.

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

IntroductionIn this chapter, we want to briefly summa-

rize our experiences responding to the effects of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on coral reef and other ecosystems. We will then use

more detailed examples of that and our sub-sequent work in the field of natural disaster emergency management as a case study to draw a series of broader policy lessons learned and recommendations to improve planning and postevent actions for future natural haz-ards affecting fishery ecosystems. Our goals are to convince ecosystem specialists of the

2 MEADOWS AND BROSNAN

ways in which their participation in this field is needed and to convince emergency managers of the need to more fully consider ecosystems in emergency management.

First, we wish to provide full disclosure about our involvement and motivations re-garding responding to natural disasters as we are both survivors of such disasters and those experiences undoubtedly color some of the views that we express. D.B. survived a 1997 py-roclastic event of the Soufirere Hills Volcano in Montserrat (deborahbrosnan.com). D.M. was actually in Khao Lak, Thailand on the coast when the tsunami hit and was washed 1 mi by the wave (Emmons and MacFarlane 2005; Hannemann and Lehmkuhl 2005; Meadows 2005).

After the tsunami, we began consulting with professional ecologists, scuba divers, fishermen, aid agencies, nongovernmen-tal organizations (NGOs), and business and community leaders in the affected regions to help them respond to the effects of the disas-ter. We learned that there was significant reef damage in many areas (Brosnan 2005; Wilkin-son et al. 2006). D.B. quickly established the Tsunami Reef Action Fund (TRAF, tsuna-mireefactionfund.org) as an offshoot of the Sustainable Ecosystem Institute (SEI) to help individuals, communities, and ecosystems get back on their feet. She also took advantage of SEI’s Conservation Science Network group of professionals that had been previously estab-lished under SEI’s umbrella to serve as a re-source for events of this nature (http://www.sei.org/prlist.html). We provided technical guidance in areas that we had expertise in, including hard and soft coral restoration, ma-rine debris removal, sediment removal, and dealing with net entanglement hazards. We also provided supplies, equipment, funding, encouragement, and links to other experts. We each made multiple trips to affected ar-eas of Thailand and Sri Lanka where we pro-vided further assistance and hands-on help. We consulted and assisted in field projects: to remove marine debris that was damaging reef and sandy beach habitat in the area of Khao Lak, as well as the more well-known tourist is-lands of Phi Phi in Krabi province, Thailand

and a number of locations in Sri Lanka and the Maldives; to restore damaged hard cor-als; to work with local communities to help them sustainably manage and conserve their reef ecosystems; and to reattach giant sea fans Annella spp. in the Similan Islands National Park in Thailand. Annella sea fans in the In-dian Ocean are very large, often 2 m (6.6 ft) in diameter, and reattachment of such large individuals had not been attempted before. We had success with three methods utilizing epoxy glue, cement, or stainless and plastic hardware to bolt the seafans into the substrate using pneumatic tools (see Brosnan 2005 for details).

The results of our efforts were substan-tial (Brosnan 2005; Petchrung 2006; http://www.tsunamireefactionfund.org): more than 453.59 metric tons of debris were removed from the marine environment by our partner groups (see Phi Phi Dive Camp at http://www.phiphidivecamp.com, Tsunami Volun-teer Center at http://www.tsunamivolunteer.net, and the Ecotourism Training Center at http://www.etcth.org), hundreds of corals were uprighted and hundreds more frag-ments were transplanted to begin restora-tion efforts, 353 sea fans were reattached with 74% survival (Petchrung 2006), dozens of lo-cal people were provided income-producing jobs, and hundreds of local and international volunteers learned new skills and an appre-ciation for the benefits of healthy marine eco-systems. Additionally, many new projects and initiatives have begun that trace their roots to our efforts, including ReefCheck reef train-ing and monitoring groups, an experimental coral nursery, and artificial reef deployment, to name a few.

Despite the successes of our work de-scribed above, we also know that much more could have been accomplished had we been better prepared. We fear that more unneces-sary damage to coral reefs and other aquatic ecosystems will occur if we do not improve our readiness for future events. In addition to our experience in responding to the tsunami, we have worked on responses to other natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods, and volcanic events. D.M. has also been trained by

3MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO REEFS AND OHER ECOSYSTEMS

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in emergency response processes and works with emergency managers at the State of Hawaii Civil Defense Office and the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration. These experiences have shaped our views on the ways in which scientists and emergency managers can work together bet-ter to minimize and mitigate impacts of natu-ral disasters on ecosystems.

Should We Respond to and Restore Ecosystems Damaged by

Natural Disasters?Despite our accomplishments and those

of others involved in restoration work after the tsunami (see Barbier 2006; Phongsuwan et al. 2006; Wilkinson et al. 2006), multiple authors in the excellent book, Coral Reef Restoration Handbook, edited by William Precht (2006), argue that “natural” events like hurricanes or tsunamis “are not appropriate for reef resto-ration” (Symons et al. 2006). This is the only book on the topic and seems to reflect a fairly widely held view in the coral restoration com-munity, so we want to quickly provide our own counterpoint to this view.

The foundation of the view of the au-thors in Precht (2006) seems to be the no-tion that coral reef organisms have adapted to the periodic disturbance regime of hur-ricanes and tsunamis (however, see Schef-fers et al. (2006) for a possible example of a Holocene tsunami that led to a phase shift from a reef dominated to an algal-dominated community). While we do not dispute that reef organisms have usually adapted to these natural disturbances, the current situation is more complex in ways that may require human intervention. First, their notion as-sumes an ecosystem that is not significantly affected by human activities. However, this is not the situation in many ecosystems today. Multiple authors have concluded that coral reefs are under threat from human activities globally and that 80% of reefs in Southeast Asia are considered at risk from human im-

pact (Spalding et al. 2001; Burke et al. 2002; Wilkinson 2004). More specifically, there is mounting evidence that the frequency of tropical cyclones is increasing in recent years (Webster et al. 2005; Holland and Webster 2007) and that this may be due to human influences, including global warming. The combined effects of human impacts and more frequent natural disasters may over-whelm the resilience and adaptive capacity of reef organisms.

Our work from the tsunami removing 453.59 metric tons of debris, including a variety of petroleum products, plastics, and other chemicals, and fishing nets, also shows that large amounts of human byproducts are now part of the aftermath of so-called natural events. As this human-generated debris can cause significant physical dam-age, smothering, and chemical pollution to coral reefs and other ecosystems (Petchrung 2006; Wilkinson et al. 2006), the distinction between natural and anthropogenic events is blurred. The amount of debris recovered by our collaborators is roughly equivalent to the amount of marine debris, mostly derelict fishing nets, removed by the U.S. government and partners from the northwestern Hawai-ian Islands at a cost of more than US$15 million (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, unpublished data) over the past 10 years or so to decrease impacts to coral reefs and endangered monk seals and sea turtles. Further, the U.S. government es-timates that hundreds of millions of tons of debris were left in the marine environment after the hurricanes of 2005, and this debris is affecting both the economy and ecosystems (NMFS 2007 and Gaude et al. 2008; Osborn et al. 2008; both this volume). In addition, there is growing evidence that coral reefs are less resilient to stressors than they used to be because of the negative impacts of multiple simultaneous stressors, including climate change, coral bleaching, fishing alterations to food webs, decreased water quality, over-collection of reef organisms, and boat strikes (Wilkinson 2004; Grimsditch and Salm 2005). Thus, the assumptions inherent in chapters of Precht (2006), that natural events require


no response may cause us to fail to take ac-tion when it is needed and thus hasten the demise of vital ecosystems and processes, ex-actly the opposite of what is intended (Bros-nan 2005; Petchrung 2006).

A different point is made by Adger et al. (2005) who argue that the “upsurge in in-vestment in artificial rehabilitation of reefs is misguided because it fails to reverse the root causes of regional-scale degradation.” While we agree that some proposed solutions are overengineered, expensive, and of small scale, we believe that development of such restoration technology is a valuable compo-nent to broader efforts aimed at comprehen-sive conservation and restoration of ecosys-tem services and that many “triage” efforts of rerighting and stabilizing large coral heads are worthwhile. We cannot improve our suc-cess in such efforts without real-world trials so that reef restoration can reach the level of success of silviculturists on land (Rinkev-ich 2006). While attention does need to be focused on regional-scale degradation as well, at a minimum, artificial rehabilitation can slow or halt declines in ecosystems while all other threats are addressed. Addition-ally, Adger et al. (2005) and others make the unjustified assumption that aid investment, and particularly volunteer labor, are part of a zero sum system where investment in one effort precludes investment in other efforts because of limited funding. It is our sense that many of the volunteers and donors who helped to recover ecosystems after the tsu-nami, ourselves included, would not have otherwise donated the time and money we did to other worthy, but nontsunami related, conservation causes. Such added investment can then enhance overall ecosystem function at no real cost to other conservation efforts, if such investments are not zero-sum.

Given all of the above information, we conclude that a wide variety of efforts to re-store the resilience of, and recover, coral reefs and other ecosystems after natural disasters can be successful and should be attempted under appropriate conditions. Many of these conditions are described more fully in exam-ples below.

Adopting the Language of Emergency Management

The current philosophy of emergency preparedness revolves around all or multihaz-ard planning and preparedness rather than the earlier model where emergency manag-ers developed separate, and sometimes in-compatible, response plans and processes for each type of natural or anthropogenic disas-ter (FEMA 1996). Disaster managers orga-nize their work around the four phases of the disaster cycle (Figure 1) formally called the preparedness, response, recovery, and miti-gation phases. One of our overarching goals in this paper is to help raise the understand-ing of the importance of considering natural resources and ecosystems in emergency man-agement planning. To do this, we suggest that the ecological and restoration community more fully adopt the language and protocols of the emergency management profession. In particular, the terms response, recovery, miti-gation, and preparedness have specific mean-ings in the context of emergency management that may differ from those used by ecosystem specialists and may cause confusion as natural sciences and ecosystems become more widely considered by emergency managers and deci-sion makers. The term “mitigation” in particu-lar has somewhat different meanings for en-vironmental professionals versus emergency

The Disaster CycleThe Disaster Cycle

Preparedness

Recovery

ResponseResponseMitigationMitigation

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the disaster cycle.


managers. For environmental professionals, mitigation has regulatory and common usage meanings that are often synonymous with deal-ing with planned development projects or de-creasing impacts of some other unintentional anthropogenic causes. For example, wetlands mitigation often involves actions to improve or produce new wetlands in areas as a result of planned destruction or harm to wetlands elsewhere. For the U.S. government, environ-mental mitigation is defined in federal regula-tions (40 CFR 1508.20) to include (a) avoid-ing; (b) minimizing the impacts by limiting the magnitude or degree; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) compen-sating for the impact by replacing or provid-ing substitute resources or environments. This definition used by the federal government in-cludes parts of the response, preparedness, and recovery phases used by emergency managers. For emergency managers, mitigation means actions that “involve lasting, often permanent, reduction of exposure to, probability of, or po-tential loss from hazard events” (FEMA 2006). The following discussion further highlights these differences.

As a cycle, there is no starting point to the disaster cycle, but the mitigation phase is often the first one to be considered. The mitigation phase in emergency management involves efforts that are made to decrease the potential severity and impact of future disas-ters or hazards. This can happen in the imme-diate aftermath of disasters, but also happens in between disasters as part of the regular re-view and prioritization process. The Prepared-ness phase includes actions to prepare people, equipment, and plans for dealing with disas-ters and other hazards. There can be a subtle distinction here, and even overlap, between the mitigation and preparedness phases and actions. Preparedness, however, is seen as the planning phase to deal with the inevitable nature of natural disasters and other events, while mitigation involves positive actions be-fore an event to decrease impacts of these events. For example, moving or building new

critical infrastructure facilities like hospitals or power plants outside of hazard zones is seen as mitigation as any future hazard (e.g., earthquake) would likely have less of an im-pact on a community while related prepared-ness activities would involve developing plans and contingencies to respond to a disaster af-fecting a hospital in the hazard zone by being prepared to evacuate patients to another hos-pital outside the hazard zone.

The next phase is the response phase, which includes the time just before a disaster (if there are warning signals of the approach of a hurricane or tsunami) and also the im-mediate aftermath of an event. It is during this time that contact is made with survivors, and food, medicine, water, safety, and shelter are provided and the damages associated with the event are stabilized and assessed. The next phase is recovery, which involves the restora-tion of basic infrastructure and services and proceeds until the community has regained some semblance of original function. The ori-gin of the recovery phase is fuzzy as response actions and recovery can overlap to a large de-gree, but the difference in actions and intent is clear.

Thus, while the title of this symposium only addresses the mitigation of natural haz-ards, we will comment on, and draw lessons relevant to, all phases of the disaster cycle. In fact, we will organize the rest of this paper around those four phases, and we begin with the preparedness phase. We provide a sum-mary of policy lessons learned for each phase discussed in this section in Table 1. The les-sons learned are sorted by those appropriate for ecosystem specialists and those more ap-propriate for emergency managers.

Preparedness Phase

Policy and Legislation Issues

Probably the most important prepared-ness measure that can be taken at local, re-gional, and national levels is to recognize the economic contributions of ecosystem goods and services to the overall economy of a region or country. Much recent work has


Table 1. Summary of disaster cycle phases and policy lessons learned grouped by actions that can be taken by ecosystem specialists versus emergency managers.

Preparedness Ecosystem specialists Emergency managers

Policy and legislationEcosystem goods and services Advocate importance; help Recognize importance and calculate values. link to community recovery; advocate for full inclusion in emergency management process.National Incident Management Advocate for inclusion of Advocate for inclusion of System and national response trained ecosystem specialists trained ecosystem specialists plan in NIMS, NRP, and other in NIMS, NRP, and other planning. planning.Natural resource agency Encourage agency leadership processes to develop all-hazard disaster response programs.PlanningTechnical expert networks Join and/or develop local or Partner with natural resource regional networks of agencies, professional experts. groups, and networks.Spatial and temporal scale Provide emergency managers Solicit detailed information on issues understandable information ecosystem impacts of high on scales of potential or priority disasters. actual disasters.Local/regional pool of Help organize and develop Support development of emergency response materials equipment and supply natural resource emergency repositories for emergency response materials. response.Methodology online library Support development and Support development and contribute material. promote use postdisasterResponseDamage assessment survey Contribute to program Support program develop- protocol development. ment; integrate in plans.Volunteer ecosystem restorers Organize and train response Support and integrate volunteers. volunteer responders.RecoveryLocal/regional ecosystem Participate in planning; Encourage participation; priorities ensure all issues considered. include in plans.Improved restoration techniques Develop, test, and improve Advocate for funding. methods; advocate for funding.Postevent regulation Assist in planning for possible Solicit input from ecosystem scenarios. specialists.Monitoring Organize and participate in Support development of developing monitoring monitoring program. protocols.MitigationLand-use planning Point out implication of land- Solicit input from ecosystem use plans for ecosystems. specialists.Zoning laws Point out implication of Solicit input from ecosystem zoning laws for ecosystems. specialists.Education Provide understandable Make education a high information for a variety priority of audiences.


been done in this area overall (Costanza et al. 1997; Balmford et al. 2002) and for coral reef resources in particular (Cesar 2000). Ce-sar et al. (2003) found that goods and services from coral reefs provide a yearly net benefit of $30 billion worldwide. Costanza et al. (1997) showed that the value of clean water, shoreline protection from waves, habitat, tourism, and so forth from natural ecosystems is greater than the worldwide gross domestic product. Yet, un-derstanding and utilization of this information is still limited to specialists already interested in these facts and has not penetrated far into the policy or legislative arenas. In our work in Thailand, the economic impact of tourism and scuba divers was a major factor in the decision of the government and stakeholders to focus efforts on seafan restoration as the seafans are considered a major part of the tourist attrac-tion for scuba divers in the Similan Islands National Park. However, most of our work was not government-funded, and prioritization was more based on the interests and abilities of the project staff, volunteers, and funders, with only some thought given to ecosystem services. Since the tsunami, the government of Thailand has invested in artificial reefs and breakwalls off a long stretch of the open coast off Khao Lak and further south, partly in hopes of using those reefs to mitigate the force of po-tential tsunami and storm waves in the future. International agencies are also organizing ef-forts at mangrove restoration, based in part on the shoreline protection some authors found they provided during the tsunami (Danielsen et al. 2005; Kathiresan and Rajendran 2005; Vermaat and Thampanya 2006; but see Kerr et al. 2006 and Kerr and Baird 2007).

However, recognition of the value of eco-system goods and services has not penetrated to the level of preparedness prioritization for future disaster scenarios as it should, either in Thailand or in the United States. In the Unit-ed States, the major law dealing with emer-gency management is the Stafford Act, which is primarily administered by FEMA. This act establishes the framework for disaster pre-paredness and mitigation plans and programs as well as postdisaster assistance programs. As-sistance is provided for individuals, communi-

ties, debris removal, and, in some cases, small businesses, but there is no assistance explicitly for ecosystems. In fact, the Stafford Act is en-tirely silent on the role of ecosystems in disas-ters (beyond exempting some reconstruction projects from the requirements for National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] review), though the act does consider impacts on pub-lic and private property and income. Indeed during emergencies, the NEPA environmen-tal impact statement (EIS) process is often seen as a hindrance rather than a tool. How-ever, in an EIS process, Brosnan (unpublished manuscript) documented the habitat destruc-tion and loss of essential ecosystem services (subsistence fisheries and tourism) that would result from the destruction of a coral reef in order to build an emergency structure during a volcanic eruption. Through extensive indi-vidual and NGO advocacy, the lost ecological services were factored into the decisions and successfully mitigated. Thus, the outcome de-pended entirely on chance involvement of key scientists and policy makers and government funders rather than any considered policy or procedure.

However, Gaude et al. (2008) describe efforts where emergency responders and a Sea Grant fishery extension agent were able to work within the FEMA framework in the aftermath of the 2005 hurricanes under the notion that the economic livelihood and/or property of fishers was being affected. This ad hoc collaboration, based on the specific per-sonnel involved in this one situation, did not spread to the wider response to this disaster, though efforts are underway to potentially expand this type of Sea Grant–FEMA partner-ship for future fishery community disasters. Nevertheless, general assistance for ecosystem response and recovery actions is not planned for or foreseen in these laws in any compre-hensive way. Future reauthorizations of these laws need to address this shortcoming and in-clude appropriations for an emergency fund to plan for and respond to ecosystem damage from natural and man-made disasters, as well as to better assist those individuals and busi-nesses that make their living from sustainable uses of natural resources and ecosystems.


Ecosystem specialists can advocate for the importance of considering ecosystems di-rectly to on-the-ground emergency managers, through their own chain of command as in the Sea Grant example above, as well as to legisla-tors, students, and the community and through environmentally concerned nongovernmental organizations and lobbying groups. They can also help in the process of valuing specific eco-system goods and services. Emergency manag-ers can recognize the important link between ecosystem health and the recovery and econ-omy of communities. They can also invite eco-system specialists to participate in emergency management planning and response.

Other important policy and procedures in regards to emergency management include the establishment of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) in 2004 (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2004a) as a result of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #5 (HSPD5). The NIMS provides a comprehensive and consistent approach to all-hazard incident management at all juris-diction levels and across all emergency man-agement disciplines. Its main components are the on-scene Incident Command System, multiagency coordination, public informa-tion, incident preparedness, and resource management, communication, technology, and maintenance systems. Under this system, the organizational structure of response per-sonnel into operations, planning, and other departments is laid out in great detail. Many categories of potential responders are defined and even have certification processes to the point that in July 2007, FEMA released their new description of 14 job categories and clas-sifications targeted for emergency responders who deal with domestic or captive animals. Yet, there is no such guidance for or mention of ecosystem specialists under NIMS. Eco-system specialists and emergency managers can advocate for the inclusion and necessary training of experienced ecosystem specialists in NIMS and other disaster planning.

An all-hazard national response plan was also established under HSPD5 and was first published in December 2004 (U.S. Depart-ment of Homeland Security 2004b). The

national response plan includes emergency support functions (ESF) documents that de-scribe in detail the roles and responsibilities of federal departments and agencies and the American Red Cross as ESF coordinators or as primary or support agencies for specific subsets of emergency management response operations. The most relevant ESF for ecosys-tems is number 11: agriculture and natural resources. The purposes of ESF 11 are the (1) provision of human nutrition assistance, (2) control and eradication of an outbreak of contagious or economically devastating ani-mal/zoonotic or plant disease or plant pest infestation, (3) assurance of food safety and food security, and (4) protection of natural and cultural resources and historic resources prior to, during, and/or after an Incident of National Significance. The Department of Ag-riculture is the coordinating agency for ESF 11. While natural resources are recognized in the plan, they are clearly a minor factor as one of a set of issues focused more on top-ics with traditionally measurable economic impacts. The nexus with the food and nutri-tion purposes of ESF 11 are likely a reason for the seafood safety assessment by Hom et al. (2008) and the fishery rehabilitation work of Gaude et al. (2008), both described elsewhere in this volume. We believe environmental pro-fessionals need to become more involved in advocating for a greater role for natural re-sources with less direct links to the food sup-ply in these plans. They should also petition for funding to carry out these plans, commen-surate with the true value of their ecosystem goods and services. Local emergency opera-tions plans are supposed to transition to have the same format as the national response plan so environmental professionals can also get involved in making sure their city, county, and/or state government plans also include natural resources issues. Emergency manag-ers at all levels should facilitate involvement of ecosystem specialists (see also Glavovic 2008, this volume).

Environmental specialists should encour-age federal, state, and local natural resource trust agencies to develop all-hazard disaster response programs. Currently, because of leg-


islative mandates, excellent programs for oil spills and shipwrecks occur, but programs for other sorts of disasters are less well developed. Emergency managers can help in this pro-cess and direct agencies and staff to potential sources of funding for such work.

Planning Details

We also want to emphasize the need for planning for natural resource issues in disas-ter preparedness. It is widely known that re-sponse, restoration, and mitigation efforts are most effective when there is a priori planning for training, equipment, methods, funding, personnel, and local involvement (ONHW 2006). In our own tsunami experience, we had no personnel pretrained in the necessary relevant techniques and we had to work ad hoc, decreasing our effectiveness and risking more personal injury than needed, though luckily we had no major problems. This is-sue is of course largely self-evident, but we do want to comment on the standard plans for natural disasters and encourage ecosystem specialists to get involved in this process at the local and state levels. In regards to tsuna-mis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program has recently ex-panded from the original five western states to include the coastal states on the East and Gulf coasts. New funding is available to these states to prepare mitigation plans that include tsunamis, and this provides an opportunity for ecosystem specialists to get involved.

Currently in the United States, mitigation plans are required of all states by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, but these plans do not have to include natural resource issues per se. In Thailand, there were no prepared plans and little contact with the local community in the immediate aftermath as the government appeared overwhelmed with the humanitar-ian response, which was on a scale far larger than ever experienced before. Coral-List and the Conservation Science Network of the SEI, mentioned above, proved invaluable in mobi-lizing expert knowledge. Similar networks of resource experts could be organized at local,

state, or national levels by natural resource agencies or professional societies, based on key ecosystems in those areas, to quickly mobilize as a source of ready planning knowledge and for response personnel and expertise after an event. Ecosystem specialists should join or help create such networks, and emergency manag-ers should involve them in their activities.

Creating preparedness plans on relevant spatial and temporal scales is also impera-tive. In our own experience, areas differed tremendously in ways that affected all aspects of response and recovery operations. These differences need to be considered in natural resource response plans in the same way each community needs to assess its vulnerability and resilience individually to natural hazards (ONHW 2006). Here, we will briefly share a comparison of Khao Lak and Phi Phi islands in Thailand to give a sense of the issue. Khao Lak is a 24-km (15 mi) open coastline with high wave exposure and long, sandy beaches of shallow slope with underwater visibility gen-erally less than 1 m (3 ft). Coral development is largely limited to intermittent rock out-crops and headlands. There is no boat harbor nearby. There is a narrow band of small-scale bungalow resort areas and fishing villages nes-tled between the beach and higher elevation national park lands further inland. The main Phi Phi island where most of our work took place is a roughly “H”-shaped island with nar-row, deep bays extending out for a few hun-dred meters on either side of a sandy isthmus, with the main arms of the “H” being moun-tains of a few hundred meters elevation. As a result of this physical protection from the open ocean, waves are small and underwater visibility is high during the dry season. Coral reef development is excellent along the rims of the bays. Boat anchorage is readily available and most of the bay is accessible to swimmers and divers. Development is dense with a mix of small and large resorts.

Ideal debris removal techniques varied greatly by location. In the Phi Phi islands, all debris could be identified visually from a dis-tance, the affected areas were relatively small, so surveys could be quicker and with wider spacing, and debris was more concentrated


than in Khao Lak. In Khao Lak, we used a tar-geted search based on the known directions of the wave currents, the density of construc-tion material in different areas before the wave, and knowledge of local bathymetry to find likely areas where debris concentrations settled or aggregated. In the Phi Phi islands, we could use large nets as fold-up garbage bags for scuba divers to gather smaller debris, which could then be airlifted to the surface where snorkelers or shore-based personnel with long ropes could haul in the debris to a large nearshore temporary dump (Figure 2). Larger debris was removed with large airbags or barges with cranes. Sediment resuspension was an issue inside the bay when removing large objects embedded in the sand so a suc-tion dredge was built (Figure 3) and methods were adapted to minimize disturbance when prioritizing and removing debris. Debris operations in Khao Lak were mostly small, boat-based, and revolved around scuba divers using lift bags and boat-based personnel assist-ing with lifting heavy objects. Sediment resus-pension was not an issue. Because of the more

widely scattered nature of the debris and the smaller workforce, there was more prioritiza-tion of objects based on their perceived threat to the marine environment or humans. We solicited hotels fronting concentrations of de-bris to contribute to the effort.

Ecosystem specialists will be vital in help-ing emergency managers understand the spatial scales relevant to particular disasters. This is also true for the temporal scales of the recovery of ecosystems, which can span from days or weeks to decades, much like so-cial aspects of disasters. Emergency managers should solicit detailed information on ecosys-tem impacts of high priority disasters.

Another aspect of preparedness is procur-ing the necessary funding and equipment for emergency response. In our tsunami experi-ence, there was little funding or equipment in place. For several ecological projects, the TRAF was the only funding for several months and lack of funding prevented other key proj-ects from starting. We were able to secure do-nations of lift bags, epoxy cement, and various boat- and dredge-related equipment, but the

Figure 2. Large pile of debris removed from the ocean in Ton Sai Bay, Phi Phi Islands. April 2005. Photo courtesy of Deborah Brosnan.


acquisition process was piecemeal, required time that could have been spent on response functions, and was generally insufficient to meet all of our needs because of lack of suf-ficient funding. Of course, most funding for disaster response and recovery actions comes after the event. In the days and weeks after the tsunami, the government and private sector donors concentrated on funding humanitar-ian needs and only later began to fund eco-system-related efforts like ours when it was clear that they had available funds. In those early days, local leaders working on ecosystem recovery projects cannibalized and adapted many types of objects to serve as lifting devic-es, markers, and so forth. In addition to the emergency fund called for above, ecosystem specialists should help organize themselves from the bottom up in their own communi-ties to provide and organize the resources necessary for local responses, and NOAA and the Department of the Interior need to obtain funding for, and be more proactive in, prepar-ing for ecosystem responses. The emergency relief fund set up by the American Fisheries Society after the 2005 hurricane season is one

model of what can be done in this regard (Heitman and Jackson 2008).

While there is a good selection of pub-lished and gray literature now on survey methods and results assessing the impacts of the tsunami, there is little on coral restoration methods for situations beyond traditional ship strikes or oil spills. Reef restoration after natural disasters requires special attention to issues generally not seen in such restora-tions, including dealing with the larger scale of damage, more smothering of substrates by sediment and debris (Wilkinson et al. 2006), net entanglement issues for people and ani-mals, explosive military ordnance identifi-cation and handling, and handling and dis-position of victims’ body parts and personal belongings. In Phi Phi, three long-term Dive Camp staff, including foreigners, were trained in police procedures so that they could prop-erly handle and maintain chain of custody for human remains that were found while doing our work. We learned many useful lessons for training, preparedness, restoration methodol-ogy, and communication during natural disas-ter responses from our experiences. Some of

Figure 3. Suction dredge developed by the Phi Phi dive camp team. Photo courtesy of Andrew Hewitt.


these are discussed elsewhere in this chapter, but this material is extensive and not really ap-propriate for this more general policy paper. These more specific lessons can be found in Brosnan (2005) and on the Tsunami Reef Ac-tion Fund Web site (tsunamireefactionfund.org). Moreover, while there are libraries of resources for ecological restoration out there (Precht 2006; NOAA Damage Assessment, Re-mediation and Restoration Program Web site http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/about/index.html; The Global Restoration Network Web site http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org), the focus for these is narrower than needed for natural disaster planning and ini-tial response. What is really needed is an on-line reference library for methods related to natural resource emergency response.

Response PhaseWhen we first responded to the tsunami,

there was much listserve traffic on Coral-List and other Internet sites regarding how to survey damages, coral restoration methods, response needs, and ideas for use of artificial reefs, as there were few documents readily available. Standard methodologies were not adopted. Much time was wasted planning and preparing, and results of different studies are not comparable. Yet the sort of damage ex-perienced was previously known from other tsunami and hurricane events. In contrast, physical scientists are much more prepared for these kinds of events. They have standard protocols that are established for surveys after earthquake and tsunami events, teams of peo-ple are organized ahead of time to respond, and there is funding to do so. The Learning From Earthquakes program was started by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in 1973 and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation. There is also an Interna-tional Tsunami Survey Team. In Hawaii, there is even a group of volunteer specialists who go to predetermined, safe locations with prepre-pared kits of equipment in order to observe and measure the arrival and immediate after-math of a tsunami. Standardized ecosystem damage assessment surveys need to be devel-

oped that detail the status of the ecosystem re-sources as well as consider new or developing threats to the resources (e.g., leaking pollut-ants, breakdown of sewage treatment systems that will lead to ecosystems stresses, etc). Eco-system specialists and emergency managers can each contribute to the development of such assessment programs. The Specialized Marine Action Assessment Response Team model developed for the boating and fish-ing community and described elsewhere in this volume (Spranger and Jackson 2008) is an excellent model for assessments of human communities that are tightly linked to marine natural resources.

Natural resource managers and biologists often lament the lack of funding to accomplish needed work but often overlook the value of volunteers. The Thai government’s response was small in the area of ecosystems because of a lack of funding and probably a lack of understanding of the importance of ecosys-tem goods and services. However, there was a ready pool of volunteer organizations and individuals interested in the health of the ma-rine environment. On Phi Phi Island, Andrew Hewitt utilized his familiarity with the local area, his skills as a diver and former construc-tion worker, and his business and marketing acumen to quickly get the word out about ef-forts and opportunities to help the marine en-vironment of his local community. He started the Phi Phi Dive Camp and secured financial and in-kind support to pay for Thai people to be employed in the program and volunteers to be freely housed and fed. Since the Phi Phi islands have been a famous “backpackers” tourist destination for years, a large pool of well-to-do foreigners donated and traveled to the area to help the islands. D.B. worked closely with PROJECT AWARE to identify and link volunteer scuba divers with projects such as Phi Phi Dive Camp. Hewitt did an excellent job of getting the most out of all available la-bor, including scuba divers, snorkelers, and those who could only help onshore. His pro-gram ran full-time for 10 months, and for 4–5 months, he was using about 80 volunteers a day. He quickly developed qualifications and training protocols to take advantage of the la-


bor. But a lot of his efforts were trial and er-ror and were held back initially by the lack of appropriate equipment and training. In Khao Lak, Stuart Robbens became the environmen-tal coordinator at the Tsunami Volunteer Cen-ter (TVC), another organization that sponta-neously developed in the tsunami aftermath to help in the Khao Lak area. This organization took on a wide variety of tasks from providing food, water, shelter, and morgue services im-mediately following the tsunami to home and boat construction and skills development for survivors in the areas of arts and crafts, lan-guages, and furniture making in the recovery phase of the disaster. In Robbens’ case, he benefited from the word-of-mouth and media attention that brought folks to the TVC, but he also had to compete for volunteers work-ing in these other areas, and ecosystem proj-ects were often prioritized lower for assigning volunteers within the organization.

These examples show that, after natural disasters, there will often be a ready pool of la-bor available to help. Government at all levels could do a better job of training, equipping, and involving volunteers to help after such di-sasters. There is at least one established pro-gram that hints at what is possible. In the Flor-ida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a Reef Medics program was started in 2002 to train and use volunteer snorkelers and scuba divers to assist in identifying damage to corals from ship strikes. In some cases, the volunteers are trained in reef restoration methods as well. This is a good model for a program that could be more widely developed by ecosystem spe-cialists to include training in skills necessary to respond to disasters, as well as other events damaging to ecosystems like major runoff events. In many areas, there are already exist-ing networks of volunteers trained and active in reef monitoring programs through groups such as Reef Environmental Education Foun-dation and Reef-Check, and these organiza-tions also could expand their mission and partner with governments to provide a cadre of ecosystem first responders. Even if these volunteers were only trained in the prelimi-nary triage skills of turning over and stabiliz-ing corals overturned by the waves, a signifi-

cant amount of living reef habitat could be saved that would otherwise quickly die.

Recovery PhaseThere should be protocols in place to pri-

oritize what types of habitat and what types of interventions will be considered in the recov-ery phase. Factors that should be considered include not only benefits to ecosystem goods and services, but also the traditional eco-nomic benefit, the need to enhance natural recovery and the chance of success, and the available personnel, funding, and expertise. A good deal of time was used in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami deciding what was the most important priority for work and in finding ap-propriate methods and expertise. However, we had a collaborative group that worked well together and never lost sight of the ultimate goal, which helped ensure that what was done was useful. Moreover, a wide holistic view that includes all stakeholders and all resources is needed in these situations so that all impli-cations are considered. For example, we en-couraged a higher prioritization of efforts for our partners working on land to clear stream channels and nearby riparian zones of debris. Initial clean-up efforts were focused only on residential and beach areas in addition to the underwater cleanups. But we realized that when the rainy season began that new debris would be washed into the marine environ-ment unless debris was removed from stream channels. This would undermine the under-water efforts and move potentially dangerous debris back into tourist areas where econom-ic impacts and later removal costs would be greater. We also partnered with other groups on land to help prioritize revegetation efforts that would minimize further degradation of nearshore areas where we worked.

Most of the methods for restoration of coral reefs in the recovery phase are docu-mented in Precht (2006) so we do not delve deeply into them here. The main area where we learned new lessons was in the specific de-tails of Annella seafan restoration described above. Those lessons are too detailed for this policy paper but can be found in Brosnan


(2005), in Petchrung (2006), and in reports at tsunamireefactionfund.org.

We do want to advocate for more funding for development and research into new and improved restoration methods. Currently, there are few resources in this area, and legal constraints in dealing with shipwrecks and oil spills prevent much experimentation, though new provisions in the reauthorization of the Coral Reef Conservation Act being consid-ered by Congress may decrease this problem for reef restoration. However, there are sev-eral promising new techniques for coral nurs-eries, use of electric currents to speed coral calcification and the raising of coral propa-gules in the laboratory for field transplanta-tion (Precht 2006), that should be encour-aged. One of our Thai partners in the coral restoration efforts, the governmental Phuket Marine Biological Laboratory, has developed a coral nursery program in the Phi Phi islands in coordination with the Phi Phi Dive Camp and some of the other techniques listed above were used for response to the tsunami by oth-er responders. Ecosystem specialists should consider applying their research skills to these questions as the impacts to ecosystems from disasters can be so great. All can encourage policy makers to fund increased efforts in this area.

Recovery plans often contain provisions for the implementation of new laws to deal with the recovery process, such as new zoning laws, temporary building permits, and other provisions. An area for consideration by eco-system specialists in these plans is new or al-tered regulations on take of or disturbance to marine organisms and habitat. For instance, after the tsunami, certain islands in the Simi-lan Islands National Park were rezoned to prevent tourism until the reef resources could recover. After the 2005 hurricanes, the con-sultation provisions of the Endangered Spe-cies Act were lifted for construction to restore infrastructure to its original footprint. Ecosys-tem specialists can help emergency managers prepare for such potential effects of disasters.

Another challenge in the recovery phase is monitoring the progress and success of re-covery actions. This should not be overlooked

when planning and seeking funds for recov-ery actions. The network of experts that we suggested be developed in the preparedness section (above) will be useful here.

Mitigation PhaseMitigation efforts, in the emergency man-

agement sense of the term, are possible to lessen the impact of future tsunamis to reef environments. The need for proper planning and an emergency fund has already been men-tioned. Another area where ecosystem special-ists can contribute is in the land use planning arena at the state or local levels. Land-use plans can have many features that impact nat-ural resources, and they also lay the ground-work for what issues will have to be dealt with around natural disasters. Ecosystem specialists should be part of the land-use planning pro-cess to point out implications for ecosystems from current or proposed plans, especially in light of potential disaster scenarios. One com-mon feature of land use plans that is relevant to aquatic ecosystems that we wish to high-light is shoreline setbacks. Large shoreline setbacks are usually considered a method to protect property from coastal erosion or even storm surge. After the tsunami, larger shore-line setbacks were instituted in parts of Thai-land and Sri Lanka to protect people in some vulnerable areas by prohibiting development close to the shore, giving people more time and an easier escape route for future tsuna-mis. Such setbacks may also serve to decrease the amount of debris that will potentially end up in the ocean and this may be a valuable goal in some areas to prevent ecosystem dam-age. While many areas currently have small shoreline setbacks, having recovery plans in place that establish revised setbacks changes to be enforced after a tsunami or hurricane storm surge flood event can mitigate for the next disaster (ONHW 2006). Since most land-use plans are also not regulatory, vigilance is needed to ensure that features that help pro-tect natural ecosystems are implemented as planned.

Attention to zoning laws that determine what sorts and densities of construction can


occur in specific areas is another focus for potential mitigation efforts. Usually this topic is considered by emergency managers in the context of siting or moving critical facilities like hospitals, utility plants, and so forth out-side of hazard zones. Ecosystem specialists can play a role in these decisions by advocating for prohibitions on siting or requirements for safeguards for facilities in inundation zones that contain large amounts of materials that if released by a tsunami or hurricane storm surge event would cause excessive damage to marine ecosystems. Examples include petro-leum tank farms or the military weaponry lost at sea from the Thai naval base adjacent to Khao Lak.

Smaller scale mitigation measures are also applicable in this realm. For instance, a scuba recompression chamber doctor who returned to Khao Lak immediately after the tsunami was consumed with worry that he had caused injury or death by failing to secure a large cylinder of compressed oxygen to the outside wall of his business. This is much like the methods for earthquake proofing homes that are now widespread in at-risk areas. Re-quiring adequate containment and security of dangerous items in tsunami inundation zones is another regulatory change and com-mon sense protection that those concerned with environmental effects of natural disasters need to advocate for.

Likewise, construction standards for engi-neering buildings to withstand tsunami forces have been adopted in some places, including Hawaii, and are being revised based on lessons learned from the 2004 tsunami. Closer atten-tion should be paid, not only to engineering standards, but also changes to building codes about types of material used in coastal zone construction that would decrease the impact if such material were to end up in the ocean after a hurricane or tsunami. For example, more biodegradable or inert materials could be required.

Education is also a mitigation measure, and the natural resources community needs to do a better job of educating various sectors of the public and decision makers about the value of ecosystem goods and services, the ne-

cessity to protect and restore natural resourc-es damaged by disasters, and the methods and plans of natural resources response and recovery actions. Emergency managers can make all types of mitigation and preparation education a high priority.

ConclusionThe great human and natural environ-

mental tragedy that occurred on 26 Decem-ber 2004 has spurred many improvements in warning systems, preparedness plans, educa-tion, and response and recovery methods and coordination. In the realm of natural re-sources, there has been a greater appreciation for the protective benefits reef and mangrove ecosystems can provide. We have tried to sum-marize our broader policy lessons learned for the benefits of responding to natural di-sasters, encouraging the general public and ecosystem specialists to speak the language of and become more involved in the emergency management disaster cycle, and advocating for emergency managers to solicit more par-ticipation from the natural resources com-munity. Much of this work will require greater funding and time commitment by a variety of specialists. We have refrained from providing proscriptive steps for involvement because we anticipate that a wide variety of readers, from aquatic ecologists or restoration specialists to natural resource managers as well as experts in the various components of emergency management, will read this article. Each spe-cialty will bring different skills and interests and will be able to contribute to certain tasks and phases of the disaster cycle. Moreover, emergency management responses and plan-ning start at the local level and higher levels of government only become involved when lower levels are overwhelmed by larger scale disasters. While the framework of emergency management response is now much more uni-form across government levels, there are still tremendous differences at each of these lev-els, even within the United States. We chose to focus on the national level for this paper, which enabled us to give specific examples without overwhelming the reader with details


regarding all levels of government. The level and detail in which one can get involved var-ies tremendously. But all should contribute in some way because of the enormous impact such acute events can have. We hope those who plan for and respond to the next disaster will benefit from our thoughts.

AcknowledgmentsThe views in this chapter are those of

the authors and do not represent those of the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. government. We thank our collabora-tors in this work that really did most of the heavy lifting in the field and stimulated many great thoughts and efforts in this work, often while dealing with their own losses as survi-vors of the tragedy and somehow managing to endure the mental trauma of witnessing the aftermath for months on end. These folks include Andrew Hewitt, founder of the Phi Phi Dive Camp; Stuart Robbens, the environ-mental coordinator of the Tsunami Volunteer Center in Khao Lak; Niphon Phongsuwan of the Phuket Marine Biological Laboratory; Joanne Marston and Jenny Miller Garmandia of Project Aware, Sustainable Ecosystems In-stitute; and the hundreds of volunteers and donors who supported these efforts. Mahalo, Khob khun kha(p), and thanks. Thanks to the two anonymous reviewers. This paper is dedicated to the survivors and victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami and our children; may they learn the lessons history has taught us.

ReferencesAdger, W. N., T. P. Hughes, C. Folke, S. R. Car-

penter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social-eco-logical resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309:1036–1039.

Balmford, A. A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Rosendo, J. Roughgarden, K. Trumper, and R. K. Turner. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953.

Barbier, E. B. 2006. Natural barriers to natural di-sasters: replanting mangroves after the tsuna-

mi. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(3) 124–131.

Brosnan, D. M. 2005. After the tsunami: restor-ing coral reefs and rebuilding communities in SE Asia. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute/Tsunami Reef Action Fund Report, Portland, Oregon.

Burke, L., E. Selig, and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Insti-tute, Washington, D.C.

Cesar, H. J. S., editor. 2000. Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs. CORDIO, Kalmar University, Kalmar, Sweden.

Cesar, H. J. S., L. Burke, and L. Pet-Soede. 2003. The economics of worldwide coral reef degra-dation. Cesar Environmental Economics Con-sulting, Arnhem, Netherlands.

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge , R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, S. Naeem, K. Limburg, J. Paruelo, R. V. O’Neill, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature(London) 387:253–260.

Danielsen, F., M., M. K. Sorensen, M. F. Olwig, V. Selvam, F. Parish, N. D. Burgess, T. Hirai-shi, V. M. Karunagaran, M. S. Rasmussen, L. B. Hansen, A. Quarto, and N. Suryadiputra. 2005. The Asian tsunami: a protective role for coastal vegetation. Science 310:643.

Emmons, K., and J. MacFarlane. 2005. Wave of de-struction. People 63(1):52–55.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. Guide for all-hazard emergency opera-tions planning. Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency, Washington, D.C.

Gaude, A., W. Weikel, and N. Weikel. 2008. Fishery sector recovery: policy lessons from kurricanes Katrina and Rita. Pages xxx–xxx in K. McLaugh-lin, editor. Mitigating impacts of natural haz-ards on fishery ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 64, Bethesda, Maryland.

Glavovic, B. C. 2008. Waves of adversity, layers of resilience: lessons for building sustainable, hazard-resilient coastal communities. Pages xxx–xxx in K. McLaughlin, editor. Mitigating impacts of natural hazards on fishery ecosys-tems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 64, Bethesda, Maryland.

Grimsditch, G. D., and R. V. Salm. 2005. Coral reef resilience and resistance to bleaching. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Hannemann, U., and Lehmkuhl. 2005. Brecken bauen: private Internet-Angebote helfen bei der Suche nach Verschollenen. Focus 8 Janu-ary:26.


Heitman, J. F., and D. C. Jackson. 2008. Develop-ment and implementation of the American Fisheries Society hurricane relief initiative. Pages xxx–xxx in K. McLaughlin, editor. Miti-gating impacts of natural hazards on fishery ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Sym-posium 64, Bethesda, Maryland.

Holland, G. J., and P. J. Webster. 2007. Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend? Philosoph-ical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon-don A. DOI: 10.1098/rsta. 2007.2083.

Hom, T. T. K. Collier, M. M. Krahn, M. S. Strom, G. M. Ylitalo, W. B. Nilsson, R. N. Paranjpyype, and U. Varanasi. 2008. Pages xxx–xxx in K. McLaughlin, editor. Mitigating impacts of nat-ural hazards on fishery ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 64, Bethesda, Maryland.

Kathiresan, K., and N. Rajendran. 2005. Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estua-rine, Coastal and Shelf Science 65:601–606.

Kerr, A. M., A. H. Baird, and J. Campbell. 2006. Comments on “Coastal mangrove forests miti-gated tsunami” by K. Kathiresan and N. Ra-jendran. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67:539–541.

Kerr, A. M., and A. H. Baird. 2007. Natural barriers to natural disasters. BioScience 57:102.

Meadows, D. 2005. Surviving the tsunami. The Leader. National Outdoor Leadership School newsletter. Available: http://www.nols.edu/alumni/leader/05spring/surviving_the_tsu-nami.shtml (January 2008)

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Report to Congress on the impacts of hurri-canes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas fish-eries. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

ONHW (Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup). 2006. Cannon Beach post-disaster recovery planning forum summary report. Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup, University of Or-egon, Eugene.

Osborn, T. R., H. Dankey, and E. L. Martin. 2008. Development and implementation of a large-scale debris survey and mapping project af-ter the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. Pages xxx–xxx in K. McLaughlin, editor. Mitigating impacts of natural hazards on fishery ecosys-tems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 64, Bethesda, Maryland.

Petchrung, S. 2006. Technical assistance project: coral clean-up, rehabilitation and protection.

United Nations Office for Project Services, Fi-nal Project Report UNOP project #0043991, Bangkok, Thailand.

Phongsuwan, N., T. Yeemin, S. Worachanant, M. Duangsawasdi, C. Chotiyaputta, and J. Com-ley. 2006. Post-tsunami status of coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems on the Anda-man Sea Coast of Thailand. Pages 63–77 in C. Wilkinson, D. Souter, and J. Goldberg, editors. Status of coral reefs in tsunami affected coun-tries. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townesville, Queensland.

Precht, W. F., editor. 2006. Coral reef restoration handbook. CRC Press, New York.

Rinkevich, B. 2006. The coral gardening concept and the use of underwater nurseries: lessons learned from silvics and silviculture. Pages 291–301 in W. Precht, editor. Coral reef resto-ration handbook. CRC Press, New York.

Scheffers, S. R., A. Scheffers, U. Radtke, D. Kelleta-ti, K. Staben, and R. P. M. Bak. 2006. Tsunamis trigger long-lasting phase-shift in a coral reef ecosystem. Annals of Geomorphology 146:59–79.

Spalding, M. D., C. Ravilious, and E. P. Green 2001. World atlas of coral reefs. University of Califor-nia Press, Berkeley.

Spranger, M. S., and D. L. Jackson. 2008. Develop-ing a specialized action assessment response team. Pages xxx–xxx in K. McLaughlin, edi-tor. Mitigating impacts of natural hazards on fishery ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 64, Bethesda, Maryland.

Symons, L. C., A. Stratton, and W. Goodwin. 2006. Streamlines injury assessment and restoration planning in the U.S. national marine sanctuar-ies. Pages 167–192 in W. Precht, editor. Coral reef restoration handbook. CRC Press, New York.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2004a. National incident management system. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washing-ton, D.C.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2004b. National response plan. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.

Vermaat, J. E., and U. Thampanya. 2006. Man-groves mitigate tsunami damage: a further re-sponse. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69:1–3.

Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309:1844–1846.

Wilkinson, C., editor. 2004. Status of coral reefs of


the world. Australian Institute of Marine Sci-ence, Townsville.

Wilkinson, C., D. Souter, and J. Goldberg, editors.

2006. Status of coral reefs in tsunami affected countries: 2005. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.

lessons for minimizing impacts to coral reef and other ...€¦ · national tsunami hazard...

Documents